I've frequently predicted an EF-S 35mm f/1.8. I believe it will lack USM and have build quality and styling similar to the EF-S 18-55mm II and EF-S 55-250mm II, to keep it appealing to the broad consumer market (which, based on sales figures wants lenses <$250). I know folks here would really like USM and probably faster than f/1.8, but I don't see that happening. A 'cheap' prime that's 'normal' on APS-C is what we're likely to see, perhaps introduced alongside the T4i/650D in 1Q12.

I really hope this is going to be an EF lens. Why? Because for an APS-C-only lens, it's just too long for what it's supposed to be.

A "true" normal for APS-C (based on the size of their current 18mp sensor) would be pretty much in the middle between 24mm and 28mm, so I'd rather like to see something affordable in that focal range (even if they were just updating the 28mm f/1.8 to be better at wider apertures).

However, this seems to be more about an ultra-cheap prime to compete directly with Nikon's AF-S 35mm f/1.8 (which btw. isn't that bad and also does have an ultrasonic motor), so I guess a crap-tastic EF(-S) 35mm f/1.8 is quite realistic.

canon rumors FORUM

scottk

I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that. Are there even any EF-S primes besides a macro? I just don't understand the advantage of it being EF-S. It cuts out some of their potential buyers.

I don't understand making it EF-S rather than EF. They can make affordable, EF primes, both the 50 1.8 and 501.4 prove that. Are there even any EF-S primes besides a macro? I just don't understand the advantage of it being EF-S. It cuts out some of their potential buyers.

I quote from myself:because size does matter for some of us, compare efs 60 2.8 with ef 100 2.8.. probably a smaller lens can be cheaper as well for the same IQ. they say the af of 50 1.2 is slow because it is so heavy, the af can be faster as well and consume less battery.

because size does matter for some of us, compare efs 60 2.8 with ef 100 2.8.. probably a smaller lens can be cheaper as well for the same IQ. they say the af of 50 1.2 is slow because it is so heavy, the af can be faster as well and consume less battery.

But in your example, you're comparing lenses of two different focal lengths. Yes, the 60mm on APS-C gives equivalent framing to the 100mm on FF, but they give different framing on APS-C. Compare the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro - they're approximately the same size.

But a 35mm APS-C lens would benefit from size reduction of the short back focus as well as the reduced image circle.

But in your example, you're comparing lenses of two different focal lengths. Yes, the 60mm on APS-C gives equivalent framing to the 100mm on FF, but they give different framing on APS-C. Compare the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro - they're approximately the same size.

But a 35mm APS-C lens would benefit from size reduction of the short back focus as well as the reduced image circle.